Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment

[LKaven]

The zone focused rangefinder, with the ability to see the frame in-context, to see beyond the edges of the frame, was a remarkably perfect instrument for HCB's methods. One wonders, in fact, how much of the method comes from the tool.

A lot can be said for that.

[RSL]

I wasn't there, but I imagine the kid would have had his hand out for several seconds; plenty of time to frame the shot and dilly dally before pressing the shutter. You might even have had time to change film and take another shot. Looks like a fairly static situation. I also think it's a shot that might have been better taken with a slightly wider angle lens and cropped in post processing. I don't like people's heads being cropped in half.

You're right, Ray. You weren't there. I'm still looking for a post from you or anybody on here that demonstrates any advantage of a movie camera in street shooting.

[amolitor]

I think Nikon has not gotten around to this, but there are many useful things that could be done with the basic Nikon 1 system.

As I understand it, when you touch the shutter button, it begins to shoot 60 frames/second into a buffer, retaining the last second or so. Pressing the button is actually a signal to the camera to save a frame already shot - so the shutter lag is zero. Or can be. In fact, it could be slightly negative.

Another model of usage might be to capture a half a second slice of things, 30 frames, with 15 before and 15 after.

I have not tried it, I don't own a Nikon 1, and I don't think the firmware even allows this kind of usage. But there's no reason it could not, and it would be quite helpful, I believe.

[Isaac]

I'll take that evasion as an acknowledgement that you simply misunderstood the comment you were reading.

Says the guy who represents himself as an authority on photography…

Not true -- I do not represent myself as an authority on photography.

It doesn't take an authority on photography to understand the difference between Cartier-Bresson's approach and your approach.

It doesn't take an authority on photography to understand that some people have the grace to acknowledge their commonplace mistakes but others become belligerent.

… but has not shown a single frame of his work.

Not true -- there are photos I've taken posted in the LuLa forums.

However I refuse to respond to Russ's repeated bullying, simply to demonstrate that Russ has no authority to tell other LuLa members what to do.

When Russ issues bullying commands (or you start name-calling) the argument is over, and all that's missing is your graceful concession.

[Jonathan Wienke]

When Russ issues bullying commands (or you start name-calling) the argument is over, and all that's missing is your graceful concession.

Concede what? You've consistently misconstrued what I've written to mean the exact opposite of what I actually said. The links you cite do not support your points or arguments. I'm supposed to concede the argument just because you say you're right and I'm wrong, without any coherent reasoning as to why? It's a classic example of arguing from authority, with yourself as the authority.

If you are representing yourself to be an authority just because you said so, asking to see some samples of your work is not "belligerent", it is entirely reasonable. An alleged authority with no evidence to support his claim to authority is not credible.

And for the record, I looked through your profile and several months of your posting history before I made the comment about you not posting any of your work. You didn't have any image links or any attached images anywhere I could find.

[amolitor]

Fixating on tiny throwaway side remarks or phrases is one of the classic moves of the Lesser Internet Troll (formerly: Lesser Usenet Troll)

[amolitor]

And just for reference, Isaac, Jonathan appears to be exactly correct.

See, for example, your remarks in #220, You've carefully removed a great deal of context, but when reconstructed, it is clear that you are turning what Jonathan said around 180 degrees so that you can accuse him of self-contradiction. Unlike jjj, who boldly quotes what he's about to claim means the exact opposite, you're more careful to cover your tracks.

The goal is the same, though. To irritate, to annoy, and to consume people's time in attempting to endlessly "clarify" remarks you're lazily dismissing in a few moments, with enough of a sneer to keep the fight rolling.

[RSL]

Not true -- there are photos I've taken posted in the LuLa forums.

Links, Isaac. Give us links to those photos. Or else actually post some photos. I'm wi8th Jonathan. I'm willing to concede you're fairly well read in the literature, but when you start talking about techniques you're talking through your hat unless we can see some examples.

[amolitor]

Of the many remarks you have made in your no doubt long life, Isaac, you've chosen one that doesn't seem to construe much of anything about anything. And then you've demanded that Jonathan quote where you misconstrued. Now who's the bully?

Go take a peek at #220 instead, where you are in fact guilty as charged.

[mezzoduomo]

Please show what parts of this comment you believe misconstrue what you've written. Quote what I wrote, alongside what you originally wrote.

Being 'right' (especially in a meaningless internet forum) is life's boobie prize.
Someone close to you should intervene on your behalf.

[RSL]

However, one clear advantage of modern technology which should make most, if not all street shots easier, is auto-focusing. I don't believe any camera had that facility in 1953.

You're right. It was all manual focus. You learned zone focusing because you had to do that, just as you learned how to use guide numbers for flash bulbs because there was no such thing as Nikon's CLS. You no longer need to learn about guide numbers, though it's always a good thing to know, but you still need to know about zone focusing if you're going to try to do street photography.

Having said all that, do you really think any kind of automation would have made this shot better? We can quibble about how I should have framed the shot and about how long I had before the kid pulled his hand away or the major changed his "I'm deliberately ignoring you" expression (Actually it was about a second. As soon as the kid saw the reaction he moved on to somebody else.) But the point is that photographs aren't made by equipment. They're made by the photographer.

By the way, for those who might think the major was being mean to the kid: all you had to do was give something to a kid like that -- anything -- and you'd immediately be mobbed by hundreds of other kids. It was a sad fact, but it was a fact.

[Isaac]

One of HCB's most famous photos was cropped, the puddle jumper shot.

In the case of "Behind the Gare St. Lazare" it seems as though Cartier-Bresson took the time to frame the scene as best he could, and then took several photos of puddle-jumpers. (But "I couldn't see a thing through the viewer" so what he hoped to be in the frame may not have been what was in the frame.)

[RSL]

Oh come on, Isaac. He could see through the crack in the fence. He just couldn't see the scene through the viewfinder. He couldn't be sure his framing was exact, but he could see the guy launch himself toward the water.

As he said, "It's all luck. You just have to be receptive, that's all." That's the point all the people suggesting we do street photography with a movie camera miss. You have to be receptive. That's what matters. If you have equipment equivalent to the earliest Leicas you can make great photographs if you're receptive. If you aren't you can't make squat, even with the most recent equipment.

[amolitor]

Any progress on explaining how your post #220 isn't a complete and deliberate misconstruing of what Jonathan said, complete with an equally deliberate effort to conceal that fact?

Isaac?

Hello?

[jjj]

Let's try to put this back on the rails.

This thread is about HCB and the philosophy of the decisive moment and its relationship to cropping after the fact.  When we're talking about "street photography" we're talking about that school of thought.

There are a few maxims in this philosophy.  (1) The photographer's engagement with the subject is continuous; (2) this engagement can lead to a simultaneous realization of the significance of the event and the exact form in which that significance is expressed, known as a "decisive moment"; (3) the "decisive moment" is as much about the photographer and the act of commitment as it is about the events in the world being photographed; (4) the photograph is an artifact whose significance is partly about the events in the world, and partly about the photographer, and his/her engagement with them.......

As long as a good photo results, it doesn't matter one jot how a photographer produced it. The only maxims as such, apply to photography in general. Good composition taken at the right moment.  

As for photographer's not cropping their work, that's an daft and arbitrary rule. Michael hit nail on head with regard to that daft idea of being limited to the sensor/film shape on the first page.
HCB not wanting other people to crop his work is a quite different thing and I'm much the same about that. But I'm happy to crop/change aspect ratio myself on my own work to get the best result. I usually shoot with a 3:2 sensor but I like 1:1 crops for some subjects. What I would really like is a proper square format sensor to maximise capture area and so I can choose my aspect ration in post and not have to turn camera for portrait shots. It would be very useful for shooting magazine or advertising work where you may need upright and horizontal shots of same subject. Though being able to mask to a shooting aspect ratio, which is then recorded to autocrop the raw file in LR, C1 etc like my pocket Sony does would be handy.

[jjj]

So then you're limited to the video resolution of the camera, rather than what the camera can shoot in still mode. So in addition to sacrificing resolution, because you're essentially shooting JPEGS, you're limiting your post-processing options significantly compared to RAW stills. That doesn't seem to be the technological panacea you're making it out to be.

Try reading posts more carefully as I've already said that is why I wouldn't use it myself.
I'm simply pointing out why Russ's reasons why it can't be done are completely bogus - which are nothing to do with image quality.

When you get some good street shot in movie mode, post it -- along with a sequence of frames so we know it was done that way. I said a GOOD street shot. I'm sure it's possible to make all sorts of crap that way.

See above as to why I wouldn't use video to do this. And you can make all sorts of crap with stills. People make good pictures not the tools they use.

[amolitor]

Aaaand we're back to the beginning. It's just nutty! I don't do it that way and cannot comprehend why anyone else would!

It's like talking to a wall.

[jjj]

And just for reference, Isaac, Jonathan appears to be exactly correct.

See, for example, your remarks in #220, You've carefully removed a great deal of context, but when reconstructed, it is clear that you are turning what Jonathan said around 180 degrees so that you can accuse him of self-contradiction. Unlike jjj, who boldly quotes what he's about to claim means the exact opposite, you're more careful to cover your tracks.

The goal is the same, though. To irritate, to annoy, and to consume people's time in attempting to endlessly "clarify" remarks you're lazily dismissing in a few moments, with enough of a sneer to keep the fight rolling.

Your constant sniping and insulting is extremely tiresome. I don't even know why you are here considering you hate LuLa and think it it a load of wank

[amolitor]

If you'd read the whole thing, you'd have seen that "the forums are pretty OK though" but you didn't, or you're pretending that you didn't.

Which would explain why I hang around in the forums. They're pretty OK.

ETA: Must say, so pleased to have another reader! I think that makes three now!

[jjj]

You're right, Ray. You weren't there. I'm still looking for a post from you or anybody on here that demonstrates any advantage of a movie camera in street shooting.

The handling when shooting with a movie camera is no different from shooting stills at 25fps. Just think of is as burst mode, albeit one without buffer issues.
All the reasons you have come out with against using movie mode only serve to illustrate that you do not know how video works or are clutching at straws with crazy claims like this...

ROTFL! So instead of paying attention to what's going on around me, I should pay attention to whether or not my card(s) are full, and make sure I have plenty of cards so I can swap them out as I fill them with worthless crap. This isn't street photography; it's idiocy!

Nonsense, a photographer should always have enough memory/film to do the job at hand and affordable large cards are easy to come by. Just for reference, you can shoot for more than two hours at 4k with Protune on a GoPro with a 64gb card. With say a two sec video clip for each 'photo' that's about 400 'shots' for a measly £25, which is far larger capacity than HCB with film. So more time to concentrate on shooting than HCB had.
Alternatively use a GoPro at 12mp in 30fps burst mode, which if you want to be discreet for Street Photography, there's probably nothing better, sadly JPEg only. I filmed undercover with a GoPro whilst making a documentary a while back as it was small enough to fit in my hand. I then used my phone to frame/control camera via wifi, so as far as people were concerned as I was simply faffing with my phone as people tend to do these days.